I just remembered after sending this that they don't officially support contribs anyway, so why be worried about what shows up there, as long as it isn't under an incompatible license.
On Thursday 19 September 2002 20:31, Digital Wokan wrote: > Mandrake is right to move it to PLF from a business point of view (and > let's face it, we all want to be paid for our work, no matter what that > work is). Of course, adding PLF to the list of software install sites for > URPMI during the use of RPMDrake or whatever the GUI version of the > software installer is would be a nice little bennie. > > On Friday 20 September 2002 01:38, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-09-20 at 04:20, Levi Ramsey wrote: > > > This thread from one of the Debian ML's is the classic in this subject: > > > > > > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2002/debian-devel-200203/msg00829. > > >ht ml > > > > They seem to have been discussing a package which actually had some use, > > though. > > > > My argument is simple. Having this package officially associated with > > the distro could conceivably offend *someone* - anyone - enough that > > they don't use Mandrake. Doesn't have to be lots of people, doesn't even > > have to happen, it's just conceivable. NOT having it officially > > associated with the package isn't going to stop anyone at all using > > Mandrake. Thus, on a purely commercial basis, the sensible decision is > > to have it in PLF, i.e., not officially associated with MDK. This isn't > > a moral crusade here.
